Canadian FHIR Baseline Profiles - Governance Stream Meeting - May 15th, 2-3pm EST

Attendees

Michael Savage
Sheridan Cook
Igor Sirkovich
Derek Ritz
Paul Knapp
Sheridan Cook
Ken Sinn
Lorraine Constable
Piers
Rita Pyle
Ron Parker
Shamil Nizamov
Thomas Zhou
Raman Dhanoa

Discussion

• Working toward
o Draft profile completion
o Homework items (review of IG, Due Diligence Reviews, Framework for Reviews, etc.)
o How to get the CA Core put through a standard, structured maturation process & ultimately adopted

• FHIR Maturity Model
o A set of stages that FHIR artefacts go through
o Gets the artefacts in front of the stakeholders who should be providing input
o We are exploring opportunities to use virtual tools for balloting and maturing the CA Core

• Maturity Roadmap
o We may be defining the maturity stages (FMM0, FMM1, etc.) in a different way than how HL7 Int’l does
o Traditionally, FMM1 = “we feel that the artefact as it stands meets the business need it is designed for” aka “draft for trial use”

• Discussion on Maturity Roadmap
o Suggestion to get the draft out to the community of implementers for their feedback (this is already a defined stage, but the suggestion is to do so sooner rather than later)
o However, other viewpoint is for the working group to conduct the Due Diligence Review first; risky to reach out to stakeholders for input before conducting an initial scan of the work’s support of existing use cases
o Value proposition to anchor reviews and end-state to: “if a vendor builds off of this baseline, they can rest assured that they have opportunities to do business in the Canadian marketplace” ; “it’s going to be part of public procurement”

• New Action Item
o Principles for how we appraise the feedback we will eventually get (i.e. can’t just add every single element that is requested)
o How do we decide what is incorporated in the CA Core vs. offered as extensions vs. not incorporated

• Tooling Opportunities
o Proposed approach was to use JIRA to do a virtual ballot
o Pilot that we may have hitched to is not ready for roll-out yet, but the concept could be used for tracking purposes if we decide to look at that route anyway
o We still have some time before we’re at this stage anyhow, so will continue to monitor where groups like HL7 are in the provision of tools for balloting

• New Action Item – Brining Use Cases in from External
o Derek can look at getting IHE engaged when the time comes for the more thorough Due Diligence Review
o Paul can come with some Use Cases as well
o Will be great also at a high level to have these engagements inform our framework / principles for the Due Diligence Review (to be elaborated on in the next meeting)

• Next Steps
o Next governance meeting we will start with emphasizing the importance of establishing a framework / principles
o As a group we will get on the same page about the following items for the framework that we draft:
o Purpose
o Scope (# of use cases to be examined)
o Depth (how deep into each iGuide/use case do we go)
o Success Criteria (how do we know we’ve accurately determined alignment or lack thereof)
o Review Process (what is the repeatable, step by step process for going through the various cases)

• Final Notes
o The presentation deck with all relevant content has been uploaded here: infocentral.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/resources/docs/hl7/canadian-core-profiles
o The file name is “CA Core - Maturity Roadmap v0.6 2020-05-15”

Hi all,

For the upcoming Canadian Core Governance Call on Friday May 15th, 2-3pm EST (reminder: see FHIR Solution Architecture in the InfoCentral calendar events), our agenda is the following:

1. Maturing & Governing the Canadian Core Profiles: Sheridan has built out a roadmap (based on the previous group discussions and input) which outlines a solid process for maturing the Canadian Core Profiles and its Implementation Guide, combining both standard HL7 maturity stages (and work items) and the work items we've agreed to take on as a group. Once the process / milestones are walked-through, it will be open for group feedback and input.

2. Framework for Due Diligence Review / Use Case Gap Analyses: Mike will introduce the kinds of principles that will need to be in place for the group to conduct these CA Core <> Use Case / IG comparisons in a consistent and time-efficient way (e.g. comparing CA Core & COVID IG profiles). Once Mike sets the context, it will be open for group feedback and input.

Thank you!

-Mike